• Health Quality Ontario.
• Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2009 Jan 1;9(5):1-51.

ObjectiveThe objective of this review was to determine the clinical effectiveness of oral appliances compared to 'no treatment', continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), or surgery for the management of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).Clinical NeedCONDITION AND TARGET POPULATION OSA is characterized by repeated occurrences of upper airway collapse and obstruction during sleep. The condition leads to excessive daytime sleepiness, diminished quality of life, and increased risks of accidents, cardiovascular disease and death. In the general population, the prevalence of OSA is estimated to be 4% in men and 2% in women. Risk factors for OSA include obesity, male gender, increasing age, alcohol use, sedative use, and a family history of OSA. DESCRIPTION OF ORAL APPLIANCES: ORAL APPLIANCES FOR OSA FALL INTO TWO BROAD CATEGORIES: mandibular advancement splints (MAS), also known as mandibular repositioning devices, and tongue repositioning or retaining devices. The aim of MAS devices is to advance the mandible forward slightly to enlarge the upper airway and prevent it from collapsing. Similarly, tongue repositioning devices suction the tongue forward to prevent it from falling back and obstructing the airway during sleep. The alternatives to oral appliances include continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices, surgery, drug therapy, positional devices, and lifestyle modification. CPAP is the gold standard of treatment, but despite its effectiveness, compliance rates for CPAP have declined because required systems are noisy and because wearing the mask can be uncomfortable, causing claustrophobia in some users.Evidence Based Analysis MethodsResearch QuestionsAre oral appliances effective in improving sleep-disordered breathing in patients with OSA compared to alternative treatments?Are there safety concerns with oral appliances?What is the evidence regarding patient preference, quality of life, and compliance for oral appliances?If effective, are oral appliances cost effective?Literature SearchA literature search was conducted up to February 2009. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with more than 20 adults with OSA were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcomes of interest were the Apnea Hypopnea Index (AHI), measures of daytime sleepiness, patient preference, compliance, and adverse events.Summary Of FindingsFive systematic reviews and 16 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria were identified. The systematic reviews consistently concluded that CPAP was more effective than oral appliances at improving sleep disordered breathing, although there may be a niche area for the latter, especially among those with mild OSA as CPAP is difficult to tolerate by some users. Based on the results of the RCTs analyzed for this review, MAS devices are less effective than CPAP when AHI is used as the outcome of interest. MAS devices were shown to decrease AHI levels, but whether this reduction is clinically meaningful is uncertain. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) was not able to achieve statistical significance in comparisons of MAS versus CPAP and MAS versus placebo. Nonetheless, after treatment with either MAS or CPAP, patients seem to be able to achieve normal ESS levels. The ESS has substantial limitations including its subjective nature and low construct validity (i.e. it is unclear if the scale is an accurate measure of sleepiness). Adverse events among patients with MAS devices in the RCTs were common, but mostly mild and transient. Jaw discomfort was the most commonly reported adverse event. Based on the results of the RCTs, compliance does not seem to be better or worse with MAS or CPAP. Similarly, there is no clear patient preference for MAS or CPAP among the studies reporting preference and satisfaction.KeywordsObstructive sleep apnea, oral appliances, mandibular advancement splints, tongue repositioning devices.

4 keywords...

hide…